In GOOD magazine, each issue closes with a “GOOD Project”: a provocation of readers, a call to respond, contribute, document or aspire.

Issue 006 of the self-proclaimed magazine for “people who give a damn” was devoted to design. With contributions from the likes of Alissa Walker, Jessica Helfand, Alice Twemlow, Luke Hayman, Brian Collins, Steven Heller and many more, I was most intrigued by this issue’s project, a design project.

GOOD Design Director Scott Stowell of Open contributed Project 006, one that asks readers to identify both good and bad design that they experience and why they feel that way. I asked Scott about his take on this most subjective of endeavors.

RJH In your eyes, what makes a piece of design “good”?

SS For me, a piece of design (or anything) is good when it was made with care and effort and a point of view. If it’s apparent that the person making it was thoughtful about the world and took pride in his or her work, then it feels good to me—whether I agree with all of their decisions or not.

But I think that whether something is “good” or “bad” is subjective—that was the main reason for Good Project no.6. It’s interesting to see what other people care about. Some of the first responses to the project were things I’d never even notice, much less bother to critique.

RJH Is there design that is good and will stay that way or do judgments of good or bad change over time?

SS How tastes change over time is both fascinating and impossible to predict. What looks great today often looks embarrassing in the future.
But it must be possible to look at anything and figure out what we can get out of it, no matter its age. That’s how buildings get landmarked, for instance.

SS That came from the people at GOOD, and I think it was a great idea—they solicit photos that way all the time. So you can see photos (including some of me) from various GOOD events, etc. on Flickr as well. It’s the closest thing we have right now to a worldwide public-domain photo database.

RJH You write, “while most of these things were designed for someone like you to use, you had no say about how they would work or look or feel.” Do you think that everyone having a say in the design they receive or use would make for better design?

SS There’s an old saying that if Henry Ford had held focus groups before introducing the Model T, the number one request of his prospective
customers would have been a faster horse. So I’m not advocating getting approval or seeking design ideas from the world up front.

But I do think that a lot of designers don’t think about the people that will buy or read or use their work. They’re more concerned with what their clients or bosses think, and they’re not always looking out for the end user either. So I think designers can act as advocates for their audience.

SS This might not be that unexpected, but I am a big fan of the twentieth-century hand-painted sign lettering that used to be found all over New York City. It’s still there if you look, but it’s slowly dying out, replaced by seemingly cheaper and more efficient solutions (see below)

RJH And bad?

SS The number one purveyor of ugliness in New York City is the vinyl store awning. Once upon a time awnings had a purpose—they were unfurled to protect an establishment from the sun and people from the rain. These vinyl ones cost a few hundred bucks, look like shit, and never go away.

RJH Something closer to home: what’s on your desk right now that’s good?

SS An aluminum 12” PowerBook, several black Uni-Ball micro pens, Eye magazine, a nixie clock, a plastic 1960s turntable from Japan that you can hang on the wall, a package of toothpicks from China, a set of Muji colored pencils, and my latest black hardcover sketchbook.

Photos on Flickr manifestly are not in the “public domain.” Even Creative Commons–licensed photos have copyright restrictions; all the others have normal copyright protection. You do not have the right to do what you wish with Flickr photos, or any copyrighted work, as you do with genuine public-domain works. Perhaps he meant “publicly viewable.”

First off, it's about time we saw an article on GOOD around here. Scott and crew do amazing working on it. Lotsa love.

Speaking of painted things in and around NYC, I was walking in midtown last week and saw this terribly executed piece of type:

All that branding money and they still can't manage to finish the details properly...

At East Texas Stae Univ we had a guy (who later helped form the portfolio center) named Rob Lawton who was mercilous. On a hot summer Texas afternoon he would take us out into the parking lot to wash our, his and other faculty cars. If one detail, one spec of dirt managed to overstay its welcome he would make that student wash the entire car over again. Women cried. Men wept. People learned type. It was GOOD. And thats hot.

I totally agree with Felix: it's about time we heard about GOOD. I've subscribed to the magazine from the beginning and I read each issue front to back. GOOD engages in a conversation with its readers: it isn't just a one-sided monologue like most items on a newstand. They have parties for their subscribers and are strengthening their web pressence.

I particularly love the projects that GOOD proposes (especially its most recent). Project 006 reminds me of a similar device that asks the public to take notice of its surroundings and question personal judgements.

Casey Caplowe (creative director @ GOOD) and Scott also gave a great presentation to a packed conference room at the recent AIGA Next Conference.